Loading
There is no summary of this meeting yet. Summaries are written once the council publishes the minutes, which are its official record of what a meeting decided. They usually appear a few weeks after the meeting.
Apologies for absence were received from County Councillor B Davies and C Hall Co-opted Member: M Evitts. Cabinet Members: J Berriman, Raiff Devlin and J Charlton. Officers: Richard Jones, Emma Palmer, Jane Thomas, and James Chappelle
There were no declarations of interest from Members relating to items for consideration on the agenda.
The Committee did not receive any disclosures of prohibited party whips which a Member has been given in relation to the meeting in accordance with Section 78(3) of the Local Government Measure 2011.
The Chair invited members to confirm the accuracy of the minutes from the previous meeting held on 13th of November 2025. The minutes were proposed, seconded, and agreed without amendment by Members and formally accepted. The Chair then asked if there were any matters arising or points requiring clarification, but none were raised.
Background The Portfolio Holder for a Learning Powys, Councillor James Gibson Watt, provided the background context for the Llandinam Consultation agenda item by outlining the stage of the process and its significance. He explained that the report before the committee represented the next step following Cabinet’s earlier decision to consult on issuing a statutory notice proposing the closure of Llandinam County Primary School from August of the following year. He confirmed that the consultation report was now complete and would be presented to Cabinet for consideration at its forthcoming meeting. He emphasised that this was not the conclusion of the process but part of a statutory sequence. If Cabinet agreed to proceed, the next stage would involve publishing the notice, inviting objections, and then producing an objection report before reaching a final determination. He acknowledged that the process was lengthy and complex, reflecting the seriousness of decisions about school organisation. The Portfolio Holder stated that he was particularly interested in hearing the views of the scrutiny committee, as these would inform his own perspective when presenting the matter to Cabinet. He noted that the consultation had generated strong and thoughtful contributions, especially from governors and staff, whose comments demonstrated intelligence and insight. He recognised the sensitivity of the issue, stressing that such decisions were rarely straightforward and involved weighing competing considerations. He concluded by affirming that members were tasked with making judgements in the best interests of learners and communities, and he thanked the committee for its engagement in this challenging matter. Marianne Evans, who presented the report to the committee, summarised the consultation process and its key findings. She explained that the proposal under consideration was to close Llandinam County Primary School, and that the consultation had taken place earlier in the term following Cabinet’s decision in July to proceed to this stage. The consultation generated 97 written responses, and the report also incorporated 63 pieces of correspondence received prior to the formal consultation period. In addition, she highlighted that a petition opposing the closure had been submitted, carrying 7,445 signatures. It was noted that the responses revealed strong support for the school within its community and identified recurring themes. One of the most significant points raised was the perception that the school provided a distinctive environment for pupils with additional learning needs (ALN), including children who had previously been home educated and had successfully reintegrated into mainstream education at Llandinam. It was acknowledged that these concerns were particularly evident in the staff and governor consultations, where the school’s small size and nurturing ethos were seen as beneficial for certain learners. She concluded by confirming that the report set out these themes in detail and that officers were present to answer questions on specialist aspects such as ALN provision, early years arrangements, and financial implications. The Chair acknowledged receipt of the written comments from the Local Member at the outset of the agenda item. He informed the committee that Councillor Karl Lewis had submitted his observations separately from the main report and that these had been circulated to members the previous afternoon. He advised everyone to read them carefully, noting that they were not included in the printed pack but had been shared electronically for consideration. The Chair also confirmed that the Local Member was observing the meeting via the public link and might be invited to speak later for clarification if required. He stressed that this arrangement was consistent with previous practice and was intended to ensure that all relevant perspectives were available to support the committee’s scrutiny of the proposal. Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Additional Learning Needs (ALN) and Specialist Provision · Members asked how the needs of pupils with ALN would be met in larger schools and whether there was clear evidence that these learners would not be lost in bigger cohorts. · They queried what specific “specialist care” pupils were receiving at Llandinam and how this differed from provision in other schools. · Questions were raised about the confidence level that all potential receiving schools could deliver the same standard of ALN support as Llandinam. · Members sought clarification on whether Estyn reports or other evidence could demonstrate that receiving schools were equipped to provide equivalent care. · Concerns were expressed about whether pupils who had previously struggled in mainstream settings would revert to home education if the school closed. · Members asked what transition arrangements would be in place to ensure pupils’ needs were understood and supported during the move Officers explained that, while it had been acknowledged that families and staff perceived Llandinam to provide “special” care, the Authority remained confident that the identified needs of the current cohort could be met in the prospective receiving schools. They stated that Llanidloes Primary School hosted a specialist centre with trained staff who provided outreach within the school and across cluster schools, and that Estyn inspections since May 2022, together with the Authority’s improvement adviser monitoring visits, had evidenced strong quality of care and education across the cluster. They clarified that the term “specialist care” had been used in the sense of care perceived by families as distinctive to them, rather than as an indication of provision that other schools could not deliver. They further noted that ALN prevalence at Llandinam stood at about 17% of the roll, which was comparable to 13.8% at Llanidloes and 12.2% at Caersws, and that larger Powys schools elsewhere successfully supported higher proportions of ALN learners where practice was person‑centred. On the risk of pupils returning to home education, officers said it was not possible at this stage to predict parents’ choices; however, if closure proceeded, there would be a significant, pupil‑specific transition package. This would include the transfer of one‑page profiles and a broader handover so that receiving schools fully understood each child’s needs before admission. Funding and Financial Impact • Members questioned how ALN funding was allocated across the school estate and whether the formula was adequate to support pupils with additional needs. • They asked whether the funding model was fair and whether inequities in per-pupil funding might have contributed to the situation. • Queries were raised about whether the proposed savings of approximately £34,000 were accurate, given potential additional transport costs and redundancy payments. • Members requested clarity on how savings were calculated, including the impact of small school top-ups, class size adjustments, and backlog maintenance avoidance. • They asked whether the cost per pupil at Llandinam compared equitably with other schools and whether rationalisation was necessary to achieve fairness. Finance officers set out that Powys’ ALN funding arrangements had been revised in 2024 as part of a formula review, with funding following the pupil. They described the relevant strands—per‑pupil allocations for local authority IDPs, school IDP allocations, and universal learning provision—and confirmed that, if pupils moved to other schools, the associated funding would move with them. When asked about the headline saving, officers said proposals of this nature typically produced savings in the £50k–£100k range, but the estimated net annual saving here had been smaller (around £34k) because Llandinam currently enrolled many out‑of‑catchment pupils who were not eligible for home‑to‑school transport. If those pupils attended their nearest schools after closure, the Authority would incur additional transport costs. The finance lead added that the calculation in the Cabinet report included premises savings and removal of the small‑schools top‑up (noted at roughly £74k) but also included an estimated class‑size top‑up pressure in receiving schools of around £26k, which reduced the overall net saving. The financial summary also reflected backlog maintenance avoidance and a notional capital receipt, with a consequential reduction in borrowing costs estimated at about £18k per year. Officers emphasised that the final financial effect would depend on parental choices after any decision, as with all school organisation proposals. Transport and Catchment Issues • Members sought details on proposed transport arrangements, including whether primary pupils would share buses with secondary pupils and whether public service buses might be used. • They asked for modelling of transport costs based on catchment assumptions and whether these costs could outweigh the savings from closure. • Questions were raised about which catchments pupils currently came from and how this would influence future transport requirements. • Members queried whether parents understood that closure would not automatically entitle them to free school transport under existing policy. Transport modelling had not been finalised at the time of the meeting; however, officers stated that the Authority would model transport on normal policy lines, and they confirmed that combined primary‑secondary transport would be considered where appropriate. They undertook to bring the emerging transport detail forward to Cabinet. They reminded members that eligibility for free transport followed the transport policy and that parents selecting a non‑nearest school would not automatically gain entitlement. On likely destinations, officers reported that in 2024 approximately 48% of Llandinam pupils lived closer to Llanidloes Primary School and around 32% lived closer to Caersws, with a further small number living closer to Newtown schools such as Ysgol Penygloddfa and St Mary’s. They confirmed that, because pupils attending Llandinam currently came from a wide area, no single receiving school had been named. Members were also advised that some routes in the area already carried buses, and that the Authority would assess sensitivity around placing younger children on mixed‑age buses while explaining such practice had operated safely in other parts of Powys for many years. Early Years Provision • Members asked what plans were in place for the nursery (Little Learning Tree) if the school closed and whether alternative venues had been identified. • They queried whether early years settings would remain financially viable without cross-subsidisation from the primary school. • Questions were raised about the minimum number of children required for viability and the funding streams available for early years provision. Officers confirmed that the consultation related to the primary school only and that the early years provider, Little Learning Tree, therefore sat outside the statutory proposal. Nonetheless, the service had already opened discussions with the provider to explore continuity options should the school close. They stated that early year’s settings operated independently of school budgets and explained the funding rate (quoted in the meeting as £6.40 per child per hour) and the Authority’s view that a setting with approximately 10–12 children could be viable. They added that the provider currently paid rent to the school in line with standard arrangements for settings and that the recent retendering process had tested the provider’s financial robustness. If an alternative venue were needed, officers said the Authority would continue to work with the provider to maintain viable early years and childcare provision in the locality. Housing Developments and Pupil Projections • Members questioned how housing growth had been factored into pupil projections and whether calculations based on a 0.145 pupil yield per house were accurate. • They asked whether planned developments in Llandinam, Caersws, and Llanidloes could generate sufficient demand to justify retaining the school. • Members suggested that Cabinet should receive clearer modelling of housing impact on future pupil numbers. Officers acknowledged that the handling of new housing within pupil projections needed to be strengthened and undertook to improve the methodology for Cabinet. They explained that the planning team advised using a pupil‑yield factor of 0.145 per dwelling at this stage and that, applying this to indicative sites (cited as around 130 dwellings for Llanidloes, 30 for Caersws, and 56 for Llandinam), the gross yield could be in the region of 168 pupils across phases. They stressed that, when considered against current capacities across Llanidloes, Dyffryn Trannon, and Caersws, there appeared to be sufficient surplus places. Officers accepted that a split by phase and further local testing would be useful and indicated this piece of work could be undertaken. Educational Outcomes and Class Sizes • Members queried whether small class sizes at Llandinam provided educational benefits for shy or anxious pupils and whether this had been considered in the proposal. • They asked whether quality of teaching, rather than class size, was the key determinant of outcomes and sought evidence to support this view. • Concerns were raised about the impact of very small cohorts on social development and extracurricular opportunities for pupils. In response to questions about class size and outcomes, officers stated that inspection evidence across Wales showed that the quality of teaching and how well individual needs were met were the principal drivers of performance, rather than class size alone. They pointed to strong Estyn outcomes across the cluster since 2022 and affirmed there were no concerns about the quality of education at Llandinam itself. They acknowledged that very small cohorts might curtail some peer‑group and extracurricular opportunities but reiterated that the strategic case for change in the Cabinet report set out wider issues: low pupil numbers, high per‑pupil costs, mixed‑age teaching constraints in a two‑class model and building condition. Officers also referred to examples where rationalisation elsewhere in Powys had broadened curricular and extracurricular opportunities, while noting that each area’s context differed. Building Condition and Ownership • Members asked for confirmation that the Council owned the school building and land outright and whether any historical covenants could affect disposal. • They queried the accuracy of the estimated building value and whether it aligned with recent sales of similar sites. Legal advice reported to the committee indicated that the land had once formed part of the Davies estate and contained a reverter clause in a 1923 conveyance; however, this reverter had been released by deed in 1981. On that basis, officers stated that the Council owned the buildings and land outright. On valuation and maintenance, officers said the Cabinet paper reflected an estimated value and backlog profile, and they supplied recent comparators from other Powys school disposals to show that the working estimate sat within a plausible range. They noted, nonetheless, that valuation was indicative until tested through the disposal process. Wider Strategic and Option Appraisal • Members questioned why Option 5 (merging Llandinam and Caersws and building a new school) had not been considered in greater depth, given that it met most success criteria. • They asked whether the rationale for rejecting this option had been fully explained in the consultation documents. • Queries were raised about whether federation or all-through school models had been explored as alternatives. Addressing Option 5 (closing Llandinam and Caersws and opening a new school on the Caersws site), officers explained that the options appraisal had scored Option 6 (closure of Llandinam) as preferred because it fully met the critical success criteria, whereas Option 5 “could meet” them and only fully met the achievability criterion. They set out that Option 5 would entail additional costs associated with a merger and a new build, a full HR management‑of‑change process across both staffing bodies, and additional officer time, which was not considered proportionate given the availability of places in nearby schools. They accepted that the consultation report could have been clearer in explaining this distinction and undertook to reflect that feedback. In relation to broader structural models, they reminded members that Llanidloes Primary and Llanidloes High already operated under a single federated governing body; formalising an all‑through arrangement had not been prioritised because the immediate case for change centred on Llandinam. Staff and Community Support • Members asked what support would be available for staff during the transition, including redeployment opportunities and timelines for redundancy processes. • They queried what measures would be taken to reassure pupils and families during what was acknowledged as a highly emotive and uncertain period. Officers recognised the uncertainty for staff and the community and outlined the indicative timeline. If Cabinet agreed to proceed, a statutory notice could be published in January 2026, with a potential final decision in March or April, subject to the number of objections and the pre‑election period. They explained that decisions in past reorganisations had sometimes been delayed into the summer term, which in turn affected the timing of management‑of‑change processes and, on occasion, required the Authority to continue salary payments into the autumn term. They reiterated the intention to seek redeployment opportunities wherever possible and confirmed that the detail would depend on individual circumstances and the timing of any final decision. For pupils and families, they reiterated that a structured transition package would be essential to ensure that receiving schools were fully prepared for each learner. The Local Member began by expressing his deep concern for the pupils rather than the physical building, emphasising that his priority was the welfare and educational outcomes of the children attending Llandinam School. He explained that many of these pupils had struggled in larger schools and had found success and confidence in the smaller, nurturing environment offered at Llandinam. He warned that, if the school were to close, several parents had explicitly stated they would withdraw their children from mainstream education and resort to home schooling, which he believed would be detrimental to the children and ultimately more costly for the authority in the long term. Councillor Lewis challenged the rationale for closure on several grounds. He argued that the building was structurally sound, contrary to the estimated maintenance backlog of £300,000 cited in the report, which he described as a “wish list” of green agenda improvements rather than essential repairs. He also questioned the financial justification, noting that the projected saving of £34,000 was minimal compared to the council’s overall budget and could easily be outweighed by future costs if pupils required specialist placements. He highlighted the school’s strong track record of educational performance, citing decades of positive Estyn outcomes and consistently high standards, including a long period of top ratings under the former Welsh Government traffic light system. He dismissed concerns about mixed-age classes, stating that many former pupils, including himself, had thrived under such arrangements and gone on to successful careers. Councillor Lewis also raised issues about pupil distribution and housing developments. He pointed out that the largest proportion of current pupils came from the Llanidloes area, which he argued should be considered part of the same catchment. He further noted that planning assumptions about future housing growth were based on open-market housing, whereas many current applications were for social housing, which typically resulted in higher numbers of school-age children. In conclusion, he urged the committee to recognise the unique role Llandinam played in supporting vulnerable learners and to reject closure, describing it as a dereliction of duty that would harm children and contradict the council’s stated commitment to being a “council of sanctuary.”
Scrutiny Observations to Cabinet on the 16th of December 2025: The Committee endorsed that: • The consultation process had been thorough, including written responses, correspondence, and a petition with significant community engagement. • The need for a clear transition package for pupils was essential, including one-page profiles and detailed understanding of individual needs to support continuity of care and learning. • Redeployment opportunities for staff should be prioritised following any Cabinet decision, with management of change processes commencing as early as possible. • The principle that funding follows the pupil was confirmed, ensuring ALN resources would transfer to receiving schools. • Receiving schools within the cluster had demonstrated strong Estyn inspection outcomes and were considered capable of meeting pupils’ educational and ALN needs. The Committee welcomed that: • Officers acknowledged the importance of early years provision and confirmed initial discussions with the Little Learning Tree setting regarding alternative arrangements. • Assurance was provided that the Council owned the school building and land outright, following clarification from legal services. • Officers recognised the need to improve modelling of housing developments in future pupil projections and committed to refining this approach. • The strategy for education transformation aimed to achieve greater equity in per-pupil funding across the county. The Committee requested that: • Cabinet receive clearer evidence on how receiving schools would deliver ALN support equivalent to current provision, referencing Estyn reports or other quality indicators. • Detailed modelling of additional transport costs be provided, including scenarios based on catchment allocations, to assess whether savings outweighed costs. • Updated pupil numbers, including confirmed January admissions, be factored into financial projections and savings calculations. • Greater clarity on housing growth assumptions and pupil yield calculations be included in future proposals, with consideration of property types and social housing impact. • Further information on early years options and viability be developed to provide certainty for the community. • Cabinet be given a strengthened explanation of why Option 5 (merger and new build) was discounted, including financial comparisons and strategic fit analysis. The Committee remain unconvinced of: • The adequacy of evidence demonstrating that pupils with ALN would receive the same level of care and support in larger schools, given parental concerns and historic experiences. • The robustness of projected financial savings, particularly when offset by transport costs, potential staffing redeployment timelines, and capital receipt assumptions. • The argument that class size was irrelevant to pupil experience, noting concerns that smaller cohorts provided benefits for shy or anxious learners. • The sufficiency of planning assumptions regarding future housing developments and their impact on school capacity. The Committee expressed concern of: • Significant anxiety among pupils and families about transition to larger schools, as highlighted in consultation responses. • The risk that some parents might opt for home education if the school closed, potentially increasing long-term costs and reducing social integration. • The limited extracurricular opportunities currently available to pupils due to very small year groups, and the need to ensure these opportunities are accessible post-transition. • The potential impact on wraparound care and after-school provision for families reliant on local arrangements, if pupils were transported to distant schools. • The emotive nature of the decision and its implications for community cohesion and trust in the Council’s transformation strategy. Scrutiny’s Recommendations with responses: Scrutiny’s Recommendation Accept (plus Action and timescale) Partially Accept (plus Rationale and Action and timescale) Reject (plus Rationale) 1 That Cabinet receives clearer evidence on how receiving schools would deliver ALN support equivalent to current provision, including reference to Estyn inspection reports or other quality indicators. Llandinam Primary School have 17% ALN pupils on roll. This is 6 pupils. All of these pupils have needs that can be met in a mainstream primary school. Llanidloes Primary School are able to support a multitude of ALN pupils as they have a Specialist Support Centre. Caersws Primary School also support a range of pupils with ALN needs. In the last inspection reports for both Llanidloes and Caersws primary schools, Estyn reported that both schools provide strong levels of support for ALN pupils. 2 That detailed modelling of additional transport costs be provided, including scenarios based on catchment allocations, to assess whether the projected savings outweighed the costs of closure. The transport costs in Cabinet report are based on modelling the transport requirements for eligible pupils to their catchment schools. 3 That updated pupil numbers, including confirmed January admissions, be factored into financial projections and savings calculations, and that figures be shown before and after applying the new funding formula. The funding has been set for 2026/27 financial year based on the pupil count date of 6th November 2025. New pupils joining the school after the count date will not impact on the formula funding for the school in that financial year. The calculations in the report are based on the current funding formula as no changes have been agreed to date. Admissions have confirmed that some applications for a January start date (in- year admissions) have been processed which would increase the numbers at the school to 37 in January 2026. Local information suggests there may be a few more pupils who may join in January. 4 That greater clarity on housing growth assumptions and pupil yield calculations be included in future proposals, with consideration of property types and the impact of social housing developments. Accept – this will be an important piece of work to strengthen the links between pupil projections and housing developments, with case studies from areas where there have been housing developments. 5 That further information on early years options and viability be developed to provide certainty for the community should the closure proceed. Accept – options for Little Learning Tree will be explored with the setting and officers should the decision be to close the school. Initial informal discussions have already started. 6 That Cabinet be given a strengthened explanation of why Option 5 (merger and new build) was discounted, including financial comparisons and strategic fit analysis, as the consultation document lacked sufficient depth on this point. In the option appraisal, Option 5 was found to be ‘possible’ compared to Option 6 ‘preferred’. This was due to Option 6 fully meeting the four Critical Success Criteria of Strategic Fit & Business Needs, Value for Money, Potential Achievability and Potential Affordability, whereas Option 5 ‘could meet’ three of the criteria and only fully meeting the Potential Achievability criteria. Whilst it is recognised that merging Caersws CP School and Llandinam CP School and opening a new primary school in Caersws would go some way to aligning with the Council’s Strategy for Transforming Education, it would offer less value for money than Option 6 because there would be additional costs associated with a merger and opening of a new school. A Management of Change HR process would be required for both schools which seems unnecessary given that there are sufficient spaces in alternative schools for the pupils currently attending Llandinam CP School. There would also need to be more officer resources to manage a merger and opening of a new school. 7 That clarity be provided on the ownership of the school building and land, and that the estimated valuation in the report be reviewed against recent comparable sales. Information provided by Legal indicates that there was a reverter, however this ceased in 1981. ‘Following a conveyance of 01.11.1923, the land was to revert to the Davies Estate on ceasing use, however it was released in a deed of 8.8.1981, so this no longer applies.’ The sale of the school building, house and grounds would generate a capital receipt which would be used to finance schemes within the capital programme in place of borrowing. Should a capital receipt of £333,000 be achieved it will save an estimated £18,000 per year in borrowing costs. The asset is held on the councils’ balance sheet at a value of £282,000 based on a 2020/21 valuation. A disposal at less than this value will create a loss in the council’s accounts funded through the unusable reserves. Sale of Irfon Valley CP School, Garth - £200k Sale of Ardwyn (Ysgol Gymraeg y Trallwng) site Welshpool - £341 8 That modelling of transport arrangements include consideration of joint primary/secondary transport and potential use of public service buses, with sensitivity to parental concerns. The Council currently integrates learners of primary and secondary ages on the same school transport. We also carry in excess of 1500 secondary aged learners to school and college on public transport. We do not put primary aged learners on public transport. 9 The Committee requested that individual transition plans for pupils be detailed, including one-page profiles and robust arrangements to ensure continuity of care and learning during the move to receiving schools. Accept – this will be implemented should the decision to proceed with closure be taken forward by Cabinet. 10 That Cabinet considers the implications for wraparound care and after-school provision, given the impact of longer travel times on families. The impact on learners who may not be able to access wraparound provision has been identified in the Consultation Report and draft impact assessment. Some pupils may not be able to access the same level of provision as they currently do at Llandinam due to reliance on home-to-school transport (should they be eligible). 11 That the financial analysis includes stress-testing of savings against additional costs such as transport, staffing redeployment timelines, and potential capital receipt variations. Accept – the current savings includes estimated transport and catering costs. As noted in the Cabinet report at point 4.10: It may not be possible to complete the required staffing processes should the decision to close the school proceed before the end of the summer term, therefore staffing costs could continue to be incurred until these processes are completed. It is estimated that teaching staff could continue to be employed until the end of December 2026 at the earliest. Non-teaching staff could potentially be released earlier, depending on their entitlement to notice. Total costs for all staff currently employed at the school for September 2026 to December 2026 are estimated to be £84k, however this includes non-teaching staff. If required, these costs would be funded from the Council’s Corporate Transformation budget, however consideration will be given to redeployment options, which may enable the costs to be funded from a different source.
Noted.
The Chair reminded members that the next meeting would concentrate on budget financial planning and the draft Integrated Impact Assessment and confirmed that this session would be held in person in the Chamber to accommodate members’ preferences. Marianne Evans explained why the review of the school funding formula had not been presented at this meeting. She stated that the consultation results and final proposals were still being considered alongside wider budget decisions, which would not be finalised until January. Consequently, the paper was being rescheduled to allow full consultation with the Schools Budget Forum before scrutiny. She assured members that modelling work was underway to show the impact of any changes across different sectors and agreed that these figures should be available for scrutiny before the budget is set. The Chair noted that the committee aimed to align formula reviews with the annual budget cycle going forward, likely making January the standard timing for these discussions and concluded with agreement that the revised scheduling would strengthen scrutiny and provide better context for decisions on funding and transformation. Comments: The Chair concluded the meeting by acknowledging the complexity and sensitivity of the discussion. He thanked all members and officers for their contributions, noting that school closure proposals were always challenging for everyone involved, including Cabinet, which would now have to consider the matter. He expressed hope that the scrutiny undertaken during the session would assist Cabinet in its deliberations and decision-making. The Chair emphasised the importance of the recommendations agreed by the committee, which would be forwarded to Cabinet to provide clarity on key concerns such as transport, ALN provision, financial implications, and building ownership.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.